Ohio Legislation Proposals

State Representatives , Dorothy Liggett Pelanda and  Nickie Antonio, along with Representatives Ruhl, Barborak, Gonzales, Ramos, Sheehy, Maag, Cera, Heard, Lundy, Hagan, R., Fedor, Phillips, Williams, Ashford, Grossman, Celebrezze, Reece, Scherer, and O'Brien cosponsoring, introduced a bill that would provide “no fee, cost, deposit, or money may be charged for the modification, enforcement, dismissal, or withdrawal of a domestic violence, anti-stalking, sexually oriented offense, or other type of protection order or consent agreement. [ HB 309 ]

   Senator Pro Tempore President Christopher Widener, with Senate President Keith Faber, Majority Floor Leader Tom Patton , Majority Whip Larry Obhof, and Senator Scott Oelslager co-sponsoring introduced a bill seeking a permanent income tax rate reduction of 4% for all tax brackets beginning in 2014, while Tim Schaffer and Bob Peterson proposed “authorize an income tax credit for donations to the permanent endowment fund of an eligible community foundations in Senate Bills 210 and 211, respectively.


  Senate Minority Whip NinaTurner with co-sponsors Tim Schaffer, Assistant Minority Leader Joe Schiavoni, and Minority Leader Eric Kearney have introduced SB 212 which in pertinence provide:

“Sec. 101.48. (B)…. Beginning with terms of office that commence after the effective date of this section, once each year, each member of the general assembly shall be subject to a controlled substance assessment to determine whether there is reasonable cause to suspect the member has a chemical dependency. The assessment shall be conducted by a qualified individual selected by mutual agreement of the clerks of the senate and house of representatives. If pursuant to an assessment there is reasonable cause to suspect that a member has a chemical dependency, the member shall submit to a controlled substance test to determine whether the member has a controlled substance test failure. The costs of such assessment and testing shall be paid by the member. The member shall be reimbursed the costs of the testing if the member's test does not reveal a controlled substance test failure.

“ (C) Once each calendar quarter on dates selected by mutual agreement of the clerks of the senate and house of representatives, approximately twenty-five per cent of the membership of the general assembly, chosen randomly, shall undergo a controlled substance assessment…

“(D) Refusal to submit to a controlled substance assessment or test as authorized under this section is an admission that the member has a controlled substance test failure...

“(E) If a member of the general assembly is determined by a controlled substance test conducted under this section to have a controlled substance test failure, the member shall do the following:

(1) Take an additional controlled substance test every thirty days until the member no
longer has a controlled substance test failure;

(2) Undergo substance abuse counseling provided by, or coordinated through, the
employee assistance program established under section 3701.041 of the Revised Code.
[ Renumbered as § 124.88 by 130th General Assembly File No. 25, HB 59, §101.01, eff. 9/29/2013]

Continuing Duties to Former Clients

 The Ohio Supreme Court’s Board of Commissioners on Grievances & Discipline Opinion 2013-4 centers around whether public defenders who represent former clients in criminal cases that end in conviction may present evidence of that conviction to impeach the former client in a current case, expanding on a statement from a previous opinion which addressed the imputation of conflicts in a public defender’s office. In addition to Rule 1.9, Opinion 2013-4 also considers Rules 1.4, 1.6, and 1.7 of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct.

  Quoting the Board of Commissioners’ opinion, the Court’s news service last Friday related  that “impeachment of a former client violates Prof.Cond.R. 1.9(c) because the public defender would be using information relating to the prior representation to attack the credibility of the former client, which would disadvantage that former client. However, the public defender may proceed with the current representation if the former client’s criminal conviction is generally known, the use of former-client information is permitted or required by the Rules of Professional Conduct, or the former client provides informed consent;” expanding on the Commission’s previous statement five years ago in Opinion 2008-4,  addressing the imputation of conflicts in a public defender’s office where it stated that “if a former client in an unrelated matter is a witness in a defendant’s criminal case, an assistant county public defender may represent the criminal defendant, but may not use or reveal information of the former client that is protected from disclosure under Prof.Cond.R. 1.9(c).”

Bill Proposing Non-resident Credit on Municipal Income Taxes

Ohio Senator Tim Schaffer yesterday again  introduced a bill which the Plain Dealer was referring to as a “controversial attempt to reduce the burden on twice-taxed commuters,”  and one he’s  “introduced in various similar forms during the past six general assemblies… all without success.”

  SB 208, the Plain Dealer’s article says, “would require large Ohio cities – including Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus, Dayton, and Toledo – to offer non-residents an annual tax credit equal to either 10 percent of their liability for the year or the amount by which the tax amount exceeds 2 percent of their taxable income, whichever is greater… Supporters say it’s unfair that such people are assessed income tax both where they work and where they live, while opponents  say the proposal would be a severe financial blow to Cleveland and other large cities who rely on such money to provide needed services.”

  Revised Code 718.121, which went into effect in 2004, covers “second municipalities imposing taxes after the time period allowed for refund."